Third party ads.

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
55,270
17,556
2,260
North Carolina
White House press secretary changes tune on Super PACs - First Read

The White House spokesman stated months ago that Romney should denounce an ad that was never even run by a third party Super Pac. Claiming it was the right thing to do.

Now he is busy stating that Obama and the White House have no control over third party ads by Super Pacs in support of the President.

So which is it? Right for Republicans to denounce ads while ok for Democrats to claim no responsibility? Or should both parties denounce out of control ads?
 
And since NBC aired the first story we have them attempting to cover for the President. They rightly noted in the first piece that Obama spokesman was demanding something from Romney months ago and claiming now the President has no power over exactly what they demanded Romney condemn. ( by the way Romney did condemn it).

Outside groups drag Obama, Romney campaigns into mud - First Read

Clear connections between the President, his staff and campaign to the Super Pac that sponsored and aired the ad. And no effort what so ever on the Presidents part to distance himself from it, condemn it or ask it be stopped.

So the question remains.... Should both Campaigns play by the same rules or does the President get a pass? Romney was asked to condemn an ad and he did. Obama has made absolutely no effort to distance himself from an ad that is an out and out lie. And the Obama team in the White House did the asking and nw claims they have no way to complain about Super Pac ads as they asked Romney to do publicly.
 
White House press secretary changes tune on Super PACs - First Read

The White House spokesman stated months ago that Romney should denounce an ad that was never even run by a third party Super Pac. Claiming it was the right thing to do.

Now he is busy stating that Obama and the White House have no control over third party ads by Super Pacs in support of the President.

So which is it? Right for Republicans to denounce ads while ok for Democrats to claim no responsibility? Or should both parties denounce out of control ads?

Maybe you could answer this:

Why is it you hold the Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans?
 
White House press secretary changes tune on Super PACs - First Read

The White House spokesman stated months ago that Romney should denounce an ad that was never even run by a third party Super Pac. Claiming it was the right thing to do.

Now he is busy stating that Obama and the White House have no control over third party ads by Super Pacs in support of the President.

So which is it? Right for Republicans to denounce ads while ok for Democrats to claim no responsibility? Or should both parties denounce out of control ads?

Maybe you could answer this:

Why is it you hold the Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans?

You need to answer your own question since Romney did as he was asked and denounced the ad the White House ask him to. Meanwhile all Obama and the White House have to say about an ad that is a straight up lie is, gee we don't control that Super Pac. When will the President denounce it?

You asked the question and it is President Obama that has failed to act, not Romney.
 
Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.
 
Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.
Every ad has a "paid for by" statement, which tells you who is responsible for it.
 
Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.
Every ad has a "paid for by" statement, which tells you who is responsible for it.


I am damn tired of irresponsible ads where the party or candidate denies any connection; bullshit, if it's done for them they should be accountable. Somebody should approve it or it don't run. I don't give a damn who pays for it.
 
Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.
Every ad has a "paid for by" statement, which tells you who is responsible for it.


I am damn tired of irresponsible ads where the party or candidate denies any connection; bullshit, if it's done for them they should be accountable. Somebody should approve it or it don't run. I don't give a damn who pays for it.

I'm sure the people who paid for it approved it.


So if I go take out a billboard calling your boss a dick head, and I say I did it for you, should you be held accountable?
 
Every ad has a "paid for by" statement, which tells you who is responsible for it.


I am damn tired of irresponsible ads where the party or candidate denies any connection; bullshit, if it's done for them they should be accountable. Somebody should approve it or it don't run. I don't give a damn who pays for it.

I'm sure the people who paid for it approved it.


So if I go take out a billboard calling your boss a dick head, and I say I did it for you, should you be held accountable?


If you are doing it on my behalf, then I should assume some accountability for it. If I refuse, then you don't get to air it unless somebody else will approve it.
 
I am damn tired of irresponsible ads where the party or candidate denies any connection; bullshit, if it's done for them they should be accountable. Somebody should approve it or it don't run. I don't give a damn who pays for it.

I'm sure the people who paid for it approved it.


So if I go take out a billboard calling your boss a dick head, and I say I did it for you, should you be held accountable?


If you are doing it on my behalf, then I should assume some accountability for it. If I refuse, then you don't get to air it unless somebody else will approve it.

You don't think that infringes on free speech?

Maybe I just think your boss is a dick and that other people need to know.
 
There is no power behind those ads. The candidate merely has to denounce the ad and we're done with it. If they DON'T denounce it --- then it is tacitly acceptable to the candidate.

That's all --- real simple.. Romney denounces one -- the W.H. denies responsibility for one but doesn't denounce it. Got it? Good..

Same power as in a major Newspaper editorial.. Adopt it -- Modify it -- or denounce it...
Just because someone endorses you or attempts to campaign on your behalf -- you don't lose control of your campaign..

When the Communist Party of the USA endorses Obama -- do we need to assume it came from his campaign? And they certainly don't NEED PERMISSION to do such a thing..
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the people who paid for it approved it.


So if I go take out a billboard calling your boss a dick head, and I say I did it for you, should you be held accountable?


If you are doing it on my behalf, then I should assume some accountability for it. If I refuse, then you don't get to air it unless somebody else will approve it.

You don't think that infringes on free speech?

Maybe I just think your boss is a dick and that other people need to know.


Yes, it does infringe on free speech. I'm not big on infringing free speech, but there are exceptions, and in politics I don't like some 3rd party putting ads on the air with impunity. At least we can specify which ads have been claimed or unclaimed by somebody who has something to lose if the ad is shall we say somewhat controversial.
 
If you are doing it on my behalf, then I should assume some accountability for it. If I refuse, then you don't get to air it unless somebody else will approve it.

You don't think that infringes on free speech?

Maybe I just think your boss is a dick and that other people need to know.


Yes, it does infringe on free speech. I'm not big on infringing free speech, but there are exceptions, and in politics I don't like some 3rd party putting ads on the air with impunity. At least we can specify which ads have been claimed or unclaimed by somebody who has something to lose if the ad is shall we say somewhat controversial.

I don't much like 3rd party ads either, I think they are a sneaky way for the candiate to lie and get away with it. However, free speech is important. If you or I felt the public needed to know something about a candidate, I dont think we should be able to be silenced simply because we don't have approval from the opposing party.
 
You don't think that infringes on free speech?

Maybe I just think your boss is a dick and that other people need to know.


Yes, it does infringe on free speech. I'm not big on infringing free speech, but there are exceptions, and in politics I don't like some 3rd party putting ads on the air with impunity. At least we can specify which ads have been claimed or unclaimed by somebody who has something to lose if the ad is shall we say somewhat controversial.

I don't much like 3rd party ads either, I think they are a sneaky way for the candiate to lie and get away with it. However, free speech is important. If you or I felt the public needed to know something about a candidate, I dont think we should be able to be silenced simply because we don't have approval from the opposing party.


Not the opposing party or candidate, your own person/party would have to approve whatever it is you want to say. The media on one side or the other will surely broadcast whatever there is to know about everybody, especially if it's not do good. But these 3rd party ads are about spin, and in many cases misrepresenting what a candidate or party really stands for. Seems to me if an ad is scurrilous enough that nobody will take responsibility for it, then the least we can do is state loudly and clearly beforehand that such is the case.
 
There is no power behind those ads. The candidate merely has to denounce the ad and we're done with it. If they DON'T denounce it --- then it is tacitly acceptable to the candidate.

That's all --- real simple.. Romney denounces one -- the W.H. denies responsibility for one but doesn't denounce it. Got it? Good..

Same power as in a major Newspaper editorial.. Adopt it -- Modify it -- or denounce it...
Just because someone endorses you or attempts to campaign on your behalf -- you don't lose control of your campaign..

When the Communist Party of the USA endorses Obama -- do we need to assume it came from his campaign? And they certainly don't NEED PERMISSION to do such a thing..


Denouncing an ad after it's run is like locking the barn door after the horses have left. The damage has been done; if the ad is offensive or unfair enough that no political entity will assume responsibility for it, then maybe it shouldn't see the light of day. Failing that, we can at least specify upfront that the ad has no support from anybody. If enough unsupported ads are run for a candidate or party, it can become a political liability, and maybe we'd see a little less of them.
 
White House press secretary changes tune on Super PACs - First Read

The White House spokesman stated months ago that Romney should denounce an ad that was never even run by a third party Super Pac. Claiming it was the right thing to do.

Now he is busy stating that Obama and the White House have no control over third party ads by Super Pacs in support of the President.

So which is it? Right for Republicans to denounce ads while ok for Democrats to claim no responsibility? Or should both parties denounce out of control ads?

Funny thing about third party ads; candidates love em when they do them good but hate em when they say stupid shit. Honestly, I think most people hate these ads. The worst thing about them is that many people can't figure out the difference between a third party ad and one put out by the actual candidate.
 
Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.
Every ad has a "paid for by" statement, which tells you who is responsible for it.


I am damn tired of irresponsible ads where the party or candidate denies any connection; bullshit, if it's done for them they should be accountable. Somebody should approve it or it don't run. I don't give a damn who pays for it.
I'm not sure what part of "Every ad has a "paid for by" statement, which tells you who is responsible for it." you don't get.
 
There is no power behind those ads. The candidate merely has to denounce the ad and we're done with it. If they DON'T denounce it --- then it is tacitly acceptable to the candidate.

That's all --- real simple.. Romney denounces one -- the W.H. denies responsibility for one but doesn't denounce it. Got it? Good..

Same power as in a major Newspaper editorial.. Adopt it -- Modify it -- or denounce it...
Just because someone endorses you or attempts to campaign on your behalf -- you don't lose control of your campaign..

When the Communist Party of the USA endorses Obama -- do we need to assume it came from his campaign? And they certainly don't NEED PERMISSION to do such a thing..


Denouncing an ad after it's run is like locking the barn door after the horses have left. The damage has been done; if the ad is offensive or unfair enough that no political entity will assume responsibility for it, then maybe it shouldn't see the light of day. Failing that, we can at least specify upfront that the ad has no support from anybody. If enough unsupported ads are run for a candidate or party, it can become a political liability, and maybe we'd see a little less of them.

But you really didn't answer the question of why these ads are different from unwanted endorsements (or wanted endorsements) or unfavorable or unsavory editorials in a large newspaper or media outlet.. Should be banish Talking Heads for the election cycle?
 

Forum List

Back
Top